CAT RC question (Inference)

[r_gaurav]

When they first arrived in America as slaves in the 1600s, Africans joined a society that was divided between master and white servants brought from Europe. In most parts of the South, some of these first African slaves became free either through escape or through emancipation by their owners. It is therefore a misconception that all African Americans in the pre-Civil War South were slaves. Many researchers have also assumed that these free African Americans were the offspring of white slave owners who took advantage of their female slaves. However, these cases represent only a small minority of free African Americans in the South. Most free African Americans were actually the descendants of African American men and white servant women.
In fact, despite the efforts of the various colonial legislatures, white servant women continued to bear children by African American fathers through the late seventeenth century and well into the eighteenth century. It appears that such births were the primary source of the increase in the free African American population for this period. Over two hundred African American families in Virginia descended from white women. Forty-six families descended from freed slaves, twenty-nine from Indians, and sixteen from white men who married or had children by free African American women. It is likely that the majority of the remaining families descended from white women since they first appear in court records in the mid-eighteenth century, when slaves could not be freed without legislative approval, and there is no record of legislative approval for their emancipations.
The history of free African Americans families in colonial New York and New Jersey, by contrast, is quite different from that of free African Americans in the South. Most were descended from slaves freed by the Dutch West India Company between 1644 and 1664 or by individual owners. Researchers have studied these families, especially a group of fourteen families that scholars have traced through at least three generations. None of the fourteen families appears to be descended from a white servant woman and an African American man. However, Lutheran church records from the eighteenth century show that a few such couples had children baptized.

The passage suggests which of the following about African American families in colonial New York and New Jersey?


a)They were not descended from white servant women and African American men.

b) They were less numerous than African American families in the colonial South.

c) Most of them were started between 1644 and 1664.

d)They began with an initial group of fourteen families.

e)Some of them may have descended from white servant women.

OA : e

Can someone please explain how?
The OA suggests from the last Para "None of the fourteen families appears to be descended from a white servant woman and an African American man.However, Lutheran church records from the eighteenth century show that a few such couples had children baptized."

I cannot make out the relevance of the second sentence though and how it contributes to (E). I can't understand it's connection with the first sentence!!! How is it that some couples having children baptized = Possible descended from White Servant Women?

(BTW, I'm not from America and am not Christian...I hope that nuance is irrelevant to understanding of the problem).

[sanyalpritish]

This the catch in Suggest Questions:What is directly mentioned in the passage can't be the answer. What the Para talks about is that 14 famalies have no descedents but he does that there were a few such couples according to the cruch, and neither does he mention that only those 14 were families present

[esledge]

Can someone please explain how?
The OA suggests from the last Para "None of the fourteen families appears to be descended from a white servant woman and an African American man.However, Lutheran church records from the eighteenth century show that a few such couples had children baptized."

I cannot make out the relevance of the second sentence though and how it contributes to (E). I can't understand it's connection with the first sentence!!! How is it that some couples having children baptized = Possible descended from White Servant Women?

(BTW, I'm not from America and am not Christian...I hope that nuance is irrelevant to understanding of the problem).

You can read "had children baptized" as simply "had children." Baptisms are events that would be recorded by the church, leaving evidence for modern-day researchers. (Much like a birth, marriage, or death certificate would be recorded.) Having the cultural context probably helps, but the passage does say "records...show...a few such couples" with children. In the previous sentence, "such couples" were defined as "a white servant woman and an African American man."

[gs.abhinav]

Emily,

The passage states -

"In fact, despite the efforts of the various colonial legislatures, white servant women continued to bear children by African American fathers through the late seventeenth century and well into the eighteenth century."

Are you supposed to assume here that the servant women were the white colonists?

Common sense would say that the white colonists are the one who colonized African/other countries and brought bonded labor from these countries to the Americas. Also, the passage states that the white servants were brought from Europe.

[tim]

GS, I cannot see how the answer to your question would be relevant to a proper analysis of the passage. As such, my advice would be not to concern yourself with answering unnecessary questions. The general rule though is not to assume anything that cannot be directly supported by the passage..

[JbhB682]

Hi Sage - for this question, is my analysis on why A is wrong, accurate ?

I think A might be wrong because "the red font below" indicates MOST were descendant's of slaves.

Is this enough to eliminate A ?








The history of free African Americans families in colonial New York and New Jersey, by contrast, is quite different from that of free African Americans in the South. Most were descended from slaves freed by the Dutch West India Company between 1644 and 1664 or by individual owners. Researchers have studied these families, especially a group of fourteen families that scholars have traced through at least three generations. None of the fourteen families appears to be descended from a white servant woman and an African American man. However, Lutheran church records from the eighteenth century show that a few such couples had children baptized.

[esledge]

That excerpt is the relevant text, and I agree that “most” is an important word, but it’s not the whole reason that (A) is wrong.

It is likely that some people pick incorrect (A) because they see “None of the fourteen families appears to be descended from a white servant woman and an African American man” in the text and immediately stop reading. But there are two things that contraindicate (A):

(1) It’s implied that the fourteen families studied were only a subset of the whole, so there could have been other African American families in colonial NY and NJ that were descended from white servant women and African American men.

(2) The “None of the fourteen families” sentence is immediately followed by the contradiction “However, Lutheran church records from the eighteenth century show that a few such couples had children baptized,” so a few such families did exist.